<![CDATA[The Constitutional Court Decision Number 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 states that the Job Creation Act has a formal defect and must be corrected within 2 (two) years since the decision was pronounced. The a quo decision created a discourse in the community regarding the enforcement status of the Job Creation Act. This paper tried to review constructively using the perspective of progressive law and judicial proportionality in finding solutions and balances. This paper used a normative juridical research method, with a conceptual, case, and legislation approach. Progressive law in Satjipto Rahardjo's perspective has four criteria. The first has a big goal in the form of human welfare and happiness. Second, contains very good human moral content. Third, progressive law is a "liberating law" which includes a very broad dimension that does not only move in the realm of practice but also theory. Fourth, it is critical and functional, because it does not stop reviewing existing deficiencies and finding ways to improve them. Meanwhile, the principle of proportionality emphasizes the alignment of goals to be achieved, rational relationships, steps that must be taken, and the feasibility between the benefits obtained in realizing the goals to be achieved and the losses suffered against constitutional rights. Based on this explanation, it can be concluded that the Constitutional Court Decision Number 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 is in line with the concept of progressive law and tried to find out a middle way through a judicial proportionality approach by considering the smallest potential loss from the issuance of the decision.]]>
